Tags

Supreme Court: Americans Have No Right to Remain Silent

The Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 17 that has been ignored by most media outlets, despite its devastating effect on one of the most fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that a person no longer has the right to remain silent as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. In relevant part, the Fifth Amendment mandates that no one “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

Like this:

Related

4 Comments

Joel, not to be lost in this, is that “taking the Fifth” is unbiblical (in fact, so is the entire Constitution’s Judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court). This is a much more significan issue. Taking the Fifth is merely a Band-aide on aself-inflicted wound:

“Anyone who does not plead guilty must swear to his innocence and pay the consequences if proven otherwise. Pleading innocent, as done in today’s constitutional courts with essentially no judgment for perjury, is not the same as swearing a self-maledictory oath, which, in capital cases, can result in the death penalty if the litigant perjures himself. For crimes of theft, anyone caught in an intentional cover-up is required to pay an additional twenty percent of the two to five times restitution (Exodus 22:1, 4) already required, depending upon the nature of the theft:

‘If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against YHWH, and lie unto his neighbour … or hath deceived his neighbour … and sweareth falsely [in a court of law]…. Then it shall be, because he … is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal [in full, NASB], and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.’ (Leviticus 6:2-5)

“The two to five times restitution is the judgment for theft; the additional twenty percent is the judgment for perjury. This added judgment serves to motivate apprehended thieves to confess their crimes, which, in turn, would expedite their cases and save court expenses…..”

@Ted, at issue here is not whether it is lawful to cover up the truth, because a Christian should know that is wrong and admit their guilt in an appropriate manner and at an appropriate time and place (i.e. not under duress or manipulation.)

At issue, rather, is whether the government will be able to routinely garner false confessions and execute arbitrary sentences on whomever it wishes, based on the implied guilt of refusal to answer questions under pressure, leading questions, questions craftily designed to create a response that implies guilt, or any other legal tactics that the typical citizen would be vulnerable to without competent legal counsel present. Even the right to legal representation is key here.

The way you see it, the police could knock at your door, ask a question and demand an answer right then and there without any due process or lawyer present to help you defend yourself – and whatever you say would most definitely be used against you in court. Now today, the difference is that whatever you don’t say can be used against you as well.

Also, I don’t know why it matters whether having a Supreme Court is biblical. This country is not a theocracy so many of its structures won’t be biblical. And yet we are still commanded to submit to the governing authorities. This does not mean, however, we should become their doormat and refuse to defend ourselves or others against injustice.

As I mentioned, taking the Fifth is a Band-aide on a self inflicted wound. In other words, under the CURRENT non-Biblical system, we should be glad we have the Fifth. However, if we were doing things Biblically, the Fifth would would recognized as both unbiblical and superfluous.

My point in everything I write is to promote the crown rights of Christ and the superiority of His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11) over man-made traditions (Matthew 15:6-9), such as the Constitution.

As for whether the United States Constitutional Republic is a theocracy or not, when one understands that the principal means by which we keep the First Commandment is by observing Yahweh’s other moral laws (of course, under the New Covenant, through Christ as Lord and Savior, motivated by love) and that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes clear that all governments are theocratic, serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land.

Furthermore, all non-existent false gods (1Corinthians 8:4-6) always have been and always will represent we the people in one form or another.

“…There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.

“People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?…”

For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.”